IAB's "Defining and Measuring Digital Ad Engagement in a Cross-Platform World"

I recently read an IAB article, “Defining and Measuring Digital Ad Engagement in a Cross-Platform World” for a class called Measuring and Monetizing Media Audiences. This article resonated with me, especially in light of our Digital Marketing class discussions. Via this blog, I wanted to share the information and dive in further.

The contributors of this article seek to address the complexity and lack of industry consensus around the subject of Engagement in a cross-channel marketing environment. The article focuses on how, with the growth of digital advertising, Engagement has “become synonymous with rational, behavioral interaction” rather than taking other forms, such as emotional or cognitive. That is, today there is “implicit (or even explicit) interchangeability between “Interactivity” and “Engagement,” suggesting that if it isn’t interactive, it cannot be engaging. However, the article argues that this is an incomplete view -- there is an abundance of historical research that demonstrates that Engagement is emotional and cognitive, as much as behavioral.

Definitions:

• Cognitive, which maps to changes in Awareness, Interest, and Intent;

• Emotional, or Affective: How did the advertising make the user feel about the

brand?

• Physical/Behavioral, or user-initiated interaction.

The paper concludes that digital advertising (vs. the broader advertising world i.e. print, readio, tv, OOH, etc) may not “own” Engagement. That is, interactivity (such as clicks or video views) doesn’t define Engagement, rather these actions provide the opportunity to measure and demonstrate it.  Engagement should measure Cognitive and Emotional, as well as Behavioral metrics.

Below are some discussion points that I wanted to comment on:

• Is there a single definition of Engagement? I would agree with the article that there does not seem to be a “one size fits all” measure. The article proposes various metrics depending on medium that can be standardized, but there is not one single metric that can measure Engagement. Rather, I believe each brand/marketer/agency should use Engagement metrics that best fit their campaign and business goals and the specifics of their ad campaign (including ad format, device, etc).  

• Do all digital metrics need to be consistent, or at the very least comparable to other media? I agree with the article that there should be efforts to measure digital engagement in a way that ties into comparable offline media. For example, online video ads may be consistent with TV. This will allow marketers and agencies to level-set, communicate, and compare cross-channel performance. It can help create a single language to be understood by various players. Marketing should be viewed holistically and various mediums affect others, so it is in marketers' interest to try to create metrics that can be viewed across platforms.

• “The legacy of the click:” Since clicks have existed as a surrogate, how do we move the focus away from the purely physical/behavioral? I don’t believe that there needs to be an effort to move away from physical behavior such as clicks. I believe these metrics are important to understanding the effects of an ad campaign and provide tremendous insight. This type of interaction and measurement is one of digital’s main value propositions. However, I do agree that these types of behavior do not fully define Engagement. As previously mentioned, there is an abundance of robust research that shows Engagement is not just physical, but also emotional/cognitive, and it is in the interest of digital advertisers to better understand these connections as well.